My point is that the claim that we are up against some sort of bandwidth wall, as opposed to a carrier created (or uncreated) infrastructure wall, is entirely misleading and, if true at all, is only so in very limited locales.

Well yes the bandwidth issues are mostly a problem in large cities. Its not such a problem in less dense areas. But it is a real issue.

Quote:

Secondly, if we are now up against a "physical bandwidth" wall, then, no growth is possible in mobile. Clearly that's not the case, and the "bandwidth wall" is so far away that it cannot in most cases even be seen. What we are up against is a carrier infrastructure wall.

In nothing did I say there was no room for growth. I said its impossible to literally provide everyone with unlimited data.

Its not the mobile carriers being lazy. This is a law of physics limitation. There isn't enough physical bandwidth to give everyone unlimited data.

The mobile carriers, at this point, can do a great deal to expand their capabilities and better deal with the bandwidth requirements their networks are currently subject to (be it improving their current networks, working toward future standards, or a combination of those things). We are not yet to a point where the law of physics is the roadblock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davesw

Where's the money?

I'm fairly surprised I have to explain this. Google generate its revenue through advertising and its services. Advertising primarily. Google recognizes, appropriately enough, that mobile is where the internet and multimedia consumption is headed, and it is of vital important to their company that they establish themselves in this market before it gets ahead of them. Or more to the point, that they establish themselves as a dominant force on this platform before a potential competitor makes that more challenging. (Google is definitely at the top of their game in this arena).

Every Android customer using Google services is a product which can be sold to other companies. Their information, their eyes, their money. Google searches and Google ads especially, but other Google services play into this as well. By establishing themselves as a strong player in the mobile phone arena they are able to create their own platform for the propagation of their business' primary revenue-producing products.

Android is free and available because that gives Google a competitive edge over other would-be competitors in the market (e.g. Microsoft). Why? Because Google doesn't care about profit from Android in terms of licensing. They care about profits that they might derive from Android users using those devices. Microsoft, by contrast, will seek to make money through licensing and their software products (e.g. Office). Similarities in other areas include iTunes, which is designed more to add value to Apple platforms than to be independently profitable, or an ink jet printer sold at a loss in hopes of recouping great profit through the sale of ink supplies.

And this should come as a surprise to nobody. This is Google's business model over and over again, and it works. They release highly competitive products which are freely available to the consumer (any relation to them being the actual product and a cost associated with that aside) and make money not from licensing that product, but rather by monetizing it in other ways (usually advertising).

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

Well yes the bandwidth issues are mostly a problem in large cities. Its not such a problem in less dense areas. But it is a real issue.

In nothing did I say there was no room for growth. I said its impossible to literally provide everyone with unlimited data.

Yes, but, by "unlimited" you essentially mean "infinite", which isn't a real issue. And, if the carriers have no way to overcome the problem in densely populated areas, again, mobile has effectively peaked, and what we have now is as good as it will ever get. Most investors seem to be betting against that being the case.

Rule #36 .... from "Trolling Techniques" from (insert name of company here)
Remember: ..... Always, always, always, when slamming Apple, be sure to include this phrase, or a similar one .... "Now, I'm not anti-Apple, in fact, in my house I have 27 iMacs, 36 iPods, 14 iPads, 11 iPhones and several thousand of $$$$ worth of beloved Apple accessories. ... and, oh yeah, one of those Apple TV thingys.

Apple, bigger than Google, √ ..... bigger than Microsoft, √ The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.

I'm confused by a lot of comments in this thread. Who thinks Apple really wants or needs to 'dominate' the mobile phone market. 20% or even 15% of the market in 2014 (given the growth of Smartphones as a total percent of all phones) would be huge.

Not to mention that Android will shortly have 1.0, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 and 3.0 phones on the markets with vastly different capabilities from each other. Windows phones will almost certainly suffer the same fate after 2 or 3 years, MS won't be able to do anything about that, because like Google, they don't control the hardware.

Not only that, but the iPhone is very likely to remain amongst the most affluent users and has a stronger app-store prospect. Companies like Hulu and Netflix will already know which kind of users pay for content (so will the magazine companies) and again, it will be Apple users, whether iPad or iPhone. Everyone knows that Mac users are FAR more likely to pay for their software than Windows users... mainly because Mac users who use Logic or Photoshop are actually professionals, not teenage boys who just HAVE TO HAVE CS5 on their PC, for bragging rights on forums.

iAd may fail, Google may grab 50% of the phone market, but so what... they'll be the majority of tight-wad 'everytyhing has to be free' users, who won't benefit Google at all. Who wants their phone spying on them, like IE6 did anyway - users will start blocking the ads and the model will become unsustainable.

Rule #36 .... from "Trolling Techniques" from (insert name of company here)
Remember: ..... Always, always, always, when slamming Apple, be sure to include this phrase, or a similar one .... "Now, I'm not anti-Apple, in fact, in my house I have 27 iMacs, 36 iPods, 14 iPads, 11 iPhones and several thousand of $$$$ worth of beloved Apple accessories. ... and, oh yeah, one of those Apple TV thingys.

Its not just about the moment, its about setting future expectations for the market.

Mobile web connected devices are soon going to become the primary way people connected to the internet. The carriers know this is coming and they cannot set an expectation that all of those devices will have access to unlimited data all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

The mobile carriers, at this point, can do a great deal to expand their capabilities and better deal with the bandwidth requirements their networks are currently subject to (be it improving their current networks, working toward future standards, or a combination of those things). We are not yet to a point where the law of physics is the roadblock.

... And this should come as a surprise to nobody. This is Google's business model over and over again, and it works. They release highly competitive products which are freely available to the consumer ...

The only reason most of Google's products are competitive, is because they are free. That and a certain amount of irrational hype that tends to be generated around them.

The problem for them with Android, unlike their other product offerings, is that they can be, and will be by the carriers, cut off from their revenue sources, from advertising and personal data collection, at will, if it better suits the carriers, who are ultimately in control of what handsets get made, what goes on them, and how they are used.

Google is a cool company, but the only reason they have released Android is to make money on it. If they are not charging smart phone manufacturers for Android, they will have to use some other method to make money on it. The only method that Google uses to make money is to sell advertisement.

If Google chooses not to sell advertisement via Android-powered smart phones, they will either have to start charging smart phone manufacturers or the Android project will be dropped just like Google has dropped hundreds of other projects that they started. I once interviewed for Google, and I was told by their folks that most of their projects are in beta for years, and they never get out of beta. Android got out of beta, but without a profit-generating model, it will fizzle out. Enough said.

Google sell advertising on their webpages and their search function. Android users use a lot of search on their phones. They don't have to push advertising, users actually gravitate towards it. As long as Android users use google applications, Google will make money on Android.

... Mobile web connected devices are soon going to become the primary way people connected to the internet. The carriers know this is coming and they cannot set an expectation that all of those devices will have access to unlimited data all the time.

Again, what this really means is "infinite data all the time". If the carriers can't provide "sufficient bandwidth all the time", mobile has reached a dead end. They can, and know they can provide sufficient data all the time, they choose to create the impression of scarcity so as to justify maximizing the cost of that data with minimal investment.

Its not just about the moment, its about setting future expectations for the market.

Mobile web connected devices are soon going to become the primary way people connected to the internet. The carriers know this is coming and they cannot set an expectation that all of those devices will have access to unlimited data all the time.

There's not a whole lot they can do about it unless they can keep control of their phones. Unfortunately, even though a platform like Android gives them that freedom, they can't do it due to their industry competitors and competing platforms like iOS. What you describe is a potential issue for the future, and a puzzle piece in the struggle today, but right now there is plenty the mobile telecom providers can do, and in the future, there is plenty of room for innovation and government involvement to free up new options for situations such as this.

In short, it is definitely a problem.

But it is not the problem.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

Rule #36 .... from "Trolling Techniques" from (insert name of company here)
Remember: ..... Always, always, always, when slamming Apple, be sure to include this phrase, or a similar one .... "Now, I'm not anti-Apple, in fact, in my house I have 27 iMacs, 36 iPods, 14 iPads, 11 iPhones and several thousand of $$$$ worth of beloved Apple accessories. ... and, oh yeah, one of those Apple TV thingys.

Again you are back to the argument of either providing unlimited data to everyone or the whole thing will fail.

No the carriers cannot effectively provide unlimited wireless data to everyone in densely populated areas. There are ways of getting around this and still provide service. Such as providing WiFi hotspots in public areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Yes, but, by "unlimited" you essentially mean "infinite", which isn't a real issue. And, if the carriers have no way to overcome the problem in densely populated areas, again, mobile has effectively peaked, and what we have now is as good as it will ever get. Most investors seem to be betting against that being the case.

Rule #36 .... from "Trolling Techniques" from (insert name of company here)
Remember: ..... Always, always, always, when slamming Apple, be sure to include this phrase, or a similar one .... "Now, I'm not anti-Apple, in fact, in my house I have 27 iMacs, 36 iPods, 14 iPads, 11 iPhones and several thousand of $$$$ worth of beloved Apple accessories. ... and, oh yeah, one of those Apple TV thingys.

Of course if i diagree with you then I am anti Apple and a troll.......very convenient for you.......

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

I'm not so sure. There is an estimate out there from bnet that estimates that Google makes about $1.4 billion a year from "free" Android. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but the writer of the article provides the basis for his estimates. http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...1-android/4637

Google sell advertising on their webpages and their search function. Android users use a lot of search on their phones. They don't have to push advertising, users actually gravitate towards it. As long as Android users use google applications, Google will make money on Android.

If what you say is correct then Google is making two very poor business decisions.

1) If its on a webpage then the OS itself is irrelevant to Googles ability to make money.

2) If users are naturally gravitating toward it you dont waste money building what would happen already.

The fact that there is at least one phone that will not have any Google search, only Bing, says a lot about Google. If they really dont care about revenue streams from Android then they are A) a foolish company, and/or B) have hubris in such excess that it could mark their downfall (in retrospect) as so many others before them. In either case Im glad I am no longer an investor.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

The only reason most of Google's products are competitive, is because they are free. That and a certain amount of irrational hype that tends to be generated around them.

The problem for them with Android, unlike their other product offerings, is that they can be, and will be by the carriers, cut off from their revenue sources, from advertising and personal data collection, at will, if it better suits the carriers, who are ultimately in control of what handsets get made, what goes on them, and how they are used.

You've brushed on definite realities, but you're pressing the interpretation too far. First, for example, let's be clear on this: Google releases a good product. Their product is especially good when compared to typical competition. Their products become excellent with time as, unlike many companies, they continue to evolve their products with definite focus. I see their products as inferior only to a competitor like Apple, which takes the very cautious and methodical approach to releasing features, only including them when they know they've got a winner. Google, by contrast, approaches products in a piecemeal sort of way that hacks things together and then evolves them. This works out well for a tech-savvy customer, but poorly for the typical consumer. Also, in the long run, it means basic features like copy/paste will be inferior unless Google completely changes them around again down the road (again bad for the consumer).

Now, maybe you were speaking specifically of carriers. From that angle what you wrote makes more sense, though I'd add that carriers also have the benefit of a platform which is somewhat competitive with iOS and one which they can mold into whatever closed environment or interest they want.

If you were including consumers, though, I could continue.

As for the second part of your argument, that will happen in cases. Verizon has given us an excellent example of this, deciding to lock down some of their smartphones with Bing only and stripping the ability from all but the most technically adept of their customers to choose a competitor (open works in many ways). But this is no big deal in the long run as long as Google is in many of these phonesand Google will remain in many of these phones as long as products like Google search remain popular. I'd wager Google accounted for this in their business strategy before the first Android phones hit the market.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

I'm not so sure. There is an estimate out there from bnet that estimates that Google makes about $1.4 billion a year from "free" Android. I'm not sure how accurate this is, but the writer of the article provides the basis for his estimates. http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...1-android/4637

The author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about. "Bnet estimates"? He just spouts some number ($10 per user per year) that Schmidt casually mentioned in a WSJ interview, and then (randomly) doubles it.

In any event, it is rounding error vis-a-vis Google's total revenues. As I mentioned before, Google gets 96% of revenue from ads in their own websites and in Google Network websites.

We've seen the results of it. 3G has been near useless in places like New York and San Francisco where they have a high concentration of iPhone users. I've seen no evidence of a straightforward easy fix to this problem. Outside of using different methods to limit and spread data usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

There's not a whole lot they can do about it unless they can keep control of their phones. Unfortunately, even though a platform like Android gives them that freedom, they can't do it due to their industry competitors and competing platforms like iOS. What you describe is a potential issue for the future, and a puzzle piece in the struggle today, but right now there is plenty the mobile telecom providers can do, and in the future, there is plenty of room for innovation and government involvement to free up new options for situations such as this.

Side deals like Skype and Bing would to some degree help sell the iPhone on Verizon. Its highly unlikely Apple would allow Verizon's side deals onto the iPhone. I wonder how would Verizon market and sell these very different situations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

deciding to lock down some of their smartphones with Bing only and stripping the ability from all but the most technically adept of their customers to choose a competitor (open works in many ways). But this is no big deal in the long run as long as Google is in many of these phonesand Google will remain in many of these phones as long as products like Google search remain popular. I'd wager Google accounted for this in their business strategy before the first Android phones hit the market.

We've seen the results of it. 3G has been near useless in places like New York and San Francisco where they have a high concentration of iPhone users. I've seen no evidence of a straightforward easy fix to this problem. Outside of using different methods to limit and spread data usage.

Sure, ignore the explanations from every company involved in the problem. AT&T needs to make their network more robust in these densely populated areas to address this problem, and part of that involves the creation of additional towers. This is particularly difficult in these areas due to the complexity of getting authorization and a good area to place the tower itself, a process which can take years (as opposed to months in much more open areas). It is something AT&T can solve, and something which they are working to solve.

That said, reception has improved significantly in both San Francisco and New York City. I spend time in both cities each year and the progress is apparent. They still have a long way to go, though. I wish AT&T compared to T-Mobile in San Francisco, for example.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

I'm sure some people want a smaller phone, but most of the Android handsets I've seen are as big or even bigger than the iPhone. That tells me there's a big market for large screen phones.

Many people over 40 simply don't have the eyesight to get much value from a browser packed into 3.5". I personally can't focus on anything closer than 18" and the small text on phones usually requires it be held no more than 12" away. It's not just the web either, many apps insist on using small font sizes. For example the ESPN World Cup app used tiny text for team summaries, player bios, stats and comments. In the end I mostly used it to follow the results. At least those were presented in larger text.

When I turned 45 (many moons ago), it suddenly occurred to me that I either needed to go see an eye doctor or an arm doctor since my arms were suddenly too short. I opted for getting reading glasses rather than getting my arms lengthened,

If what you say is correct then Google is making two very poor business decisions.

1) If its on a webpage then the OS itself is irrelevant to Googles ability to make money.

2) If users are naturally gravitating toward it you dont waste money building what would happen already.

The fact that there is at least one phone that will not have any Google search, only Bing, says a lot about Google. If they really dont care about revenue streams from Android then they are A) a foolish company, and/or B) have hubris in such excess that it could mark their downfall (in retrospect) as so many others before them. In either case Im glad I am no longer an investor.

Actually it is reelevant to Google's ability to make money. Mobile users using search, voice services and all apparently are incremental revenue streams. It therefore enhances Google's ability to make money. It is the ability to deliver Google services on the platform that is the key here.

Second issue, to the extent that IOS became a defacto standard, Apple could restrict Google's ability to generate revenue from that platform. In that sense, Android becomes "defensive". Apple's decision to block Google Voice, for instance, provides some evidence of that concern. Therefore a good strategy.

The author of that article doesn't know what he's talking about. "Bnet estimates"? He just spouts some number ($10 per user per year) that Schmidt casually mentioned in a WSJ interview, and then (randomly) doubles it.

In any event, it is rounding error vis-a-vis Google's total revenues. As I mentioned before, Google gets 96% of revenue from ads in their own websites and in Google Network websites.

Tell me what makes more sense, this estimate or the bold claim that Google makes zero dollars from Android? Then ask yourself, this question, why attack the BNet estimate, rather than the estimate of zero?

Actually it is reelevant to Google's ability to make money. Mobile users using search, voice services and all apparently are incremental revenue streams. It therefore enhances Google's ability to make money. It is the ability to deliver Google services on the platform that is the key here.

Second issue, to the extent that IOS became a defacto standard, Apple could restrict Google's ability to generate revenue from that platform. In that sense, Android becomes "defensive". Apple's decision to block Google Voice, for instance, provides some evidence of that concern. Therefore a good strategy.

This stuff probably makes more sense when also pointing out that this is likely a long-term strategy on Google's part. They're betting on the future of mobile devices and, if they're right, much of the profits they're aiming for will be realized down the road. And I do think they're right. Do do other industry players like Steve Jobs. Numbers support them. But Google should also be making money in the present as well.

As for Apple, it did look like they were considering the hardliner defense against Google (e.g. throw obstructions up against google services like Google Voice and services like advertisements), but recently it looks like they've changed their strategy.

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good. Samuel Johnson

AGH, why did I click the un-ignore button?!?! LOL Newtron is now saying iPhone customers arent sophisticated. Gotta love those sophisticated Droid commercials targeted at those pimple-faced virgins who regulate their free time between masturbation and online roll-playing games. Also love those sophisticated apps for Android compared to the the iPhone. Only the unrefined would ever use an iPhone which makes me wonder why the expensive cars have docks for iPhones yet Ive seen none for Android.

C'mon Soli try a better one. Those docks are not solely for iPhones they were made for iPods. Even a old click wheel one fits in there which was genius of Apple. BTW nobody put iPhones in the hands of the self righteous, they bought with their money and if they want to jump up and down thumping their chest about a at best borderline reception issue they have every right to do so. As far as the topic at hand goes I can see why Android is growing so. I'm a VZW subscriber and gave up waiting for the iPhone. I have a Droid 1 and its not perfect nor as refined as an iPhone but it was light years ahead of what phones they had at the time and I personally know of 8 others just like me. But each day we become more and more invested in Android, so much so that many will not be willing to give that up once an iPhone is available. The beauty of android is that a can switch phones and even switch carriers and all my apps come with me.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

I really wanted to get an iphone 4 (I know, me of all people) but AT&T's 2GB datacap really turned me off. I've had my android for just under a week now and I've already gotten past 1GB of usage. I mean, imagine how much it would cost me for the iphone 4 which is just as data intensive as Android.

AT&T is what is holding the iPhone back. NONE OF YOU CAN ARGUE WITH THAT.

I do like this Galaxy S though. It takes good pictures and excellent video, it's quick, and it does everything I want. Well, maybe not everything. That video editing on the iphone is nice.

As soon as iphone is back with a company in the US with unlimited data, I think I'm getting one.

Do you really use that much 3G data? Huh? Everyplace I camp mostly my phone will connect to wifi. Nowadays infact i have changed my data plan lower on 3G. Its not even 20% of my total data usage. Wifi rules...

C'mon Soli try a better one. Those docks are not solely for iPhones they were made for iPods. Even a old click wheel one fits in there which was genius of Apple.

So the iPod is for the sophisticated and the iPhone is for the unrefined?

Note there was a definite drop in compatibility when the iPhone was first launched BECAUSE it was using a new version of OS X, not the iPod OS, so youd be arguing that the compatibility only returned for the iPod Touch, not for the iPhone.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

In a September research note, the research firm projected Apple will sell 130 million iOS-based mobile devices per year by 2014. In comparison, Gartner projected Android will sell 259 million devices in 2014.

According to recent public statements, Apple is activating 230,000 iPhones (and iPad 3G's) a day, and selling over twice that number of iOS devices a day (they passed 100M devices about July 21 -- announced on their financial call -- and 120M on Sept 1 -- announced at the iPod event). This means that Apple will sell over 130 million iOS devices in the next year! Gartner is full of it!